No it definitely was not served! What happened is that thanks to our flawed Charter we now hove a situation whereby criminals have more rights than their victims, in part due to an activist judiciary, who are accountable to nobody, also thanks to Pierre Trudeau and his flawed Charter.
We need to take discretion in sentencing away from the judiciary and replace it with specific sentences for specific crimes. Whenever you appoint a group of people to a position for virtual life with absolutely no limits on their discretion you are asking for exactly the situation we now have, whereby our judiciary has now become accountable to nobody including those that appointed them in the first place. That needs to change if we ever again hope to have ordinary Canadian's morals and values represented. Thomas Jefferson had this to say about an appointed judciary: By 1821, Jefferson was already seeing the fruits of this flaw.
"It is not enough that honest men are appointed judges. All know the influence of interest on the mind of man, and how unconsciously his judgment is warped by that influence. To this bias add that of the esprit de corps, of their peculiar maxim and creed that 'it is the office of a good judge to enlarge his jurisdiction,' and the absence of responsibility, and how can we expect impartial decision between the General government, of which they are themselves so eminent a part, and an individual state from which they have nothing to hope or fear?" --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:121
He also wrote a letter discussing this issue to: By 1823, the fruit of this error in design was falling from the tree and rotting on the ground.
"At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:486
This flawed Charter has us going down the exact same path. When you have one segment of society that is not required to listen to the majority, and in fact has the right to dictate morals and values, you are no longer living in a democracy, but instead are living in a dictatorship. In Canada, it does not bode well for us when you have a Prime Minister, Paul Martin, who stated publicly: "As far as I'm concerned the final word in this country is the Supreme Court." That should send shivers up the backs of all those brave men and women who fought and died to protect our freedoms. If we have politicians who are content with allowing an appointed, unaccountable judiciary to make the rules, we are in trouble.
1 comment:
No it definitely was not served! What happened is that thanks to our flawed Charter we now hove a situation whereby criminals have more rights than their victims, in part due to an activist judiciary, who are accountable to nobody, also thanks to Pierre Trudeau and his flawed Charter.
We need to take discretion in sentencing away from the judiciary and replace it with specific sentences for specific crimes. Whenever you appoint a group of people to a position for virtual life with absolutely no limits on their discretion you are asking for exactly the situation we now have, whereby our judiciary has now become accountable to nobody including those that appointed them in the first place. That needs to change if we ever again hope to have ordinary Canadian's morals and values represented. Thomas Jefferson had this to say about an appointed judciary: By 1821, Jefferson was already seeing the fruits of this flaw.
"It is not enough that honest men are appointed judges. All know the influence of interest on the mind of man, and how unconsciously his judgment is warped by that influence. To this bias add that of the esprit de corps, of their peculiar maxim and creed that 'it is the office of a good judge to enlarge his jurisdiction,' and the absence of responsibility, and how can we expect impartial decision between the General government, of which they are themselves so eminent a part, and an individual state from which they have nothing to hope or fear?"
--Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:121
He also wrote a letter discussing this issue to: By 1823, the fruit of this error in design was falling from the tree and rotting on the ground.
"At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account."
--Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:486
This flawed Charter has us going down the exact same path. When you have one segment of society that is not required to listen to the majority, and in fact has the right to dictate morals and values, you are no longer living in a democracy, but instead are living in a dictatorship. In Canada, it does not bode well for us when you have a Prime Minister, Paul Martin, who stated publicly: "As far as I'm concerned the final word in this country is the Supreme Court." That should send shivers up the backs of all those brave men and women who fought and died to protect our freedoms. If we have politicians who are content with allowing an appointed, unaccountable judiciary to make the rules, we are in trouble.
Post a Comment